Diversity versus concentration in the deregulated mass media domain

Journalism and Mass Communication Quaterly

Volumn 76, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 152-162

  Iosifides, Petros ^a  

^a LONDON METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0012792473     PISSN: 10776990     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/107769909907600111     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. James Curran, "Mass Media and Democracy: A Reappraisal," in Mass Media and Society, ed. James Curran and Michael Gurevitch (London: Arnold, 1991), 82-117; John Keane, The Media and Democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991).
2. James Curran, "Mass Media and Democracy: A Reappraisal," in Mass Media and Society, ed. James Curran and Michael Gurevitch (London: Arnold, 1991), 82-117; John Keane, The Media and Democracy (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991).
3. Nicholas Garnham, Capitalism and Communication (London: Sage, 1990).
4. Graham Murdock, "Redrawing the Map of the Communication Industries: Concentration and Ownership in the Era of Privatisation," in Public Communication: The New Imperatives, ed. Marjorie Ferguson (London: Sage, 1990), 1-15; Ben Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly (Boston: Beacon Press, 1992).
5. Graham Murdock, "Redrawing the Map of the Communication Industries: Concentration and Ownership in the Era of Privatisation," in Public Communication: The New Imperatives, ed. Marjorie Ferguson (London: Sage, 1990), 1-15; Ben Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly (Boston: Beacon Press, 1992).
6. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 in the United States which, by tackling issues of access and interconnection, is the most significant piece of legislation Congress has passed for fifty years; the European Commission Directive 96/19/EC of March 1996 amending Directive 90/338 EEC with regard to the implementation of full competition in telecommunications markets; the World Trade Organization agreement of February 1997 opening the world telecommunications market into full competition.
7. For a discussion on public interest policies in relation to media concentration and competition policies at a European Union level, see Petros Iosifides, "Merger Control and Media Pluralism in the European Union," Communication Law 1 (December 1996): 247-49; Petros Iosifides, "Pluralism and Media Concentration Policy in the European Union," Javnost/The Public 4 (February 1997): 85-104; Petros Iosifides, "Methods of Measuring Media Concentration," Media, Culture and Society 19 (October 1997): 643-63.
8. For a discussion on public interest policies in relation to media concentration and competition policies at a European Union level, see Petros Iosifides, "Merger Control and Media Pluralism in the European Union," Communication Law 1 (December 1996): 247-49; Petros Iosifides, "Pluralism and Media Concentration Policy in the European Union," Javnost/The Public 4 (February 1997): 85-104; Petros Iosifides, "Methods of Measuring Media Concentration," Media, Culture and Society 19 (October 1997): 643-63.
9. For a discussion on public interest policies in relation to media concentration and competition policies at a European Union level, see Petros Iosifides, "Merger Control and Media Pluralism in the European Union," Communication Law 1 (December 1996): 247-49; Petros Iosifides, "Pluralism and Media Concentration Policy in the European Union," Javnost/The Public 4 (February 1997): 85-104; Petros Iosifides, "Methods of Measuring Media Concentration," Media, Culture and Society 19 (October 1997): 643-63.
10. Jay G. Blumler, Television and the Public Interest: Vulnerable Values in West European Broadcasting (London: Sage, 1992), 22-42.
11. See, among others, B. M. Compaine et al., Who Owns the Media? Concentration of Ownership in the Mass Communications Industry (New York: Knowledge Industry Publications, 1982); Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly.
12. See, among others, B. M. Compaine et al., Who Owns the Media? Concentration of Ownership in the Mass Communications Industry (New York: Knowledge Industry Publications, 1982); Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly.
13. National courts have asserted in many cases that diversity is an essential criterion that should be born in mind when governments legislate inbroadcasting. This view was taken in 1969 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. versus FCC, in 1961 and 1986 by the West German Federal Constitutional Court in their Deutschlandfernsehen and Lower Saxony Judgements, and in 1986 by the French Constitutional Council in its decision on the constitutionality of the 1986 law on the freedom of communication. Even in the United Kingdom, where there is no written constitution, there is a rhetoric of diversity (for more information see Vincent Porter, "The Re-regulation of Television: Pluralism, Constitutionality and the Free Market in the USA, West Germany, France and the UK," Media, Culture and Society 11 [spring 1989]: 5-27).
14. Dennis McQuail, Media Performance: Mass Communication and the Public Interest (London: Sage, 1992), 142.
15. T. J. Brennan, "The Fairness Doctrine as Public Policy," Journal of Broadcasting 33 (autumn 1989): 419-40.
16. Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem, "National Identity and Cultural Values: Broadcasting Safeguards" Journal of Broadcasting 31 (winter 1987): 60-61.
17. Cento Veljanovski, The Media in Britain Today (London: News International plc, 1990).
18. S. S. Wildman and B. M. Owen "Program Competition, Diversity and Multichannel Bundle in the New Video Industry" in Video Media Competition: Regulation, Economics and Technology, ed. Eli Noam (NY: Columbia University Press, 1985).
19. R. M. Entman and W. S. Steven, "Reconciling Economic and non-Economic Perspectives on Media Policy: Transcending the 'Marketplace of Ideas,'" Journal of Communication 42 (winter 1992): 5-19.
20. Hoffman-Riem, "National Identity and Cultural Values," 57-72.
21. McQuail, Media Performance, 145-47.
22. Ralph Negrine, "The Media and the Public Interest: Questions of Access and Control" in Controlling Broadcasting: Access Policy and Practice in North America and Europe, ed. M. Aldridge and N. Hewitt (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994), 54-55.
23. Veljanovski, The Media in Britain Today.
24. McQuail, Media Performance, 152-55.
25. Nicholas Garnham, "The Media and the Public Sphere," Intermedia 14 (winter 1986): 31.
26. An influential joint research project, initiated by NHK, the Japanese public broadcaster, in 1992 to study the world-wide diversity of TV programming found that the three traditional networks in the United States have low program diversity as compared with the leading broadcasters of other countries. The analysis (published in Studies of Broadcasting, numbers. 28, 29, 30) verified the uniformity of TV programs in the United States.
27. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly.
28. The two small highly cabled countries Holland and Belgium cannot support a wide range of domestically produced choice and found a solution in importing cheap programs from neighboring states. In Greece, where liberalization of the broadcasting sector took place in December 1989, the programming schedule of the two leading commercial channels Mega Channel and Antenna TV during the first years of operation consisted mostly of imports from the United States (mostly soap operas and game shows) due to the high costs of producing domestic drama.
29. Nicholas Garnham and Gareth Locksley, "The Economics of Broadcasting" in Broadcasting Finance in Transition, ed. Gay J. Blumler and Nositer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).
30. Nonprice competition is especially strong in broadcasting for two reasons. First, there is no direct price relationship between the cost of production and either the size or intensity of audience demand. Second, unit costs of consumption are very low, and therefore it is difficult to create effective price discrimination between programs (Garnham and Locksley, "The Economics of Broadcasting," 15).
31. H. Hotelling, "Stability in Competition" The Economic Journal (March 1929): 41-57.
32. D. R. LeDuc, "Deregulation and the Dream of Diversity," Journal of Communication 32 (autumn 1982): 164-78.
33. Patricia Aufderheide, "Cable Television and the Public Interest" Journal of Communication 42 (winter 1992): 52-65.
34. Negrine, "The Media and the Public Interest," 57.
35. T. R. Donohue and T. L. Glasser, "Homogeneity in Coverage of Connecticut Newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 55 (autumn 1978): 592-96.